Pages

September 5, 2009

1600 Pennsylvania AvenueVan Jones (see post nearby) is the latest dunce in the opera bouffe production known as the Obama Presidency. Like a lot of Obama's friends and appointees, Jones is leftist riff-raff - another scale from the rotting fish of Ivy League radicalism. He's the tough guy to Obama's Urkel, which is something like a pattern with this President.

Jones is also a Truther, which puts him in a class with short dolts named Sheen, and hectoring hags named O'Donnell and Garafalo. Good company. He also speaks in Marxist cant, which puts him in a category with millions of simple-minded misfits for whom Marx was the signpost to temporary attention, abusive power and permanent irrelevance.

That anyone even reads, much less believes in, the ravings of a 19th-century failure and crank, is amazing in itself. Marx was an idea thief who harvested his gruesome mechanistic theories from his collaborators, contemporaries and Hegel. He added some utopian egalitarianism from Rousseau and a bit of communard silliness from thinkers as far back as Plato.

Lucky for Marx, his ideas floated - rather than sank - atop the froth of a rationalist age that would include, eventually, Freud and Darwin, who added their own work to the scientific observation of mankind. He would have disappeared entirely if his crackpot rumination didn't have the prevailing intellectual mood (and European malignity) on its side.

But it was the beginning of a modern age, and we know the ruinous results of Marxism's imposition by Lenin, Stalin and others, in the name of progress, modernism and technology. When you picture human society as a clockwork mechanism, people are just screws, levers and wheels, and their blood is just another lubricant.

Why would anyone be a Marxist today? Marxism is to the study of human aspiration what phrenology is to the study of the brain. First, it's stupid, but even worse, it inhibits real knowledge by overwhelming its subject with simplifications. It's the dogma of the attention-hungry, ignorant, beligerent fool. Obama seems drawn to these fizzing bad boys; not being courageously bad himself, he delights in their company .

Every now and then, the drool from pop culture spills into politics and we end up with a Barack Obama. We have to tolerate him for at least four years. But we don't have to tolerate a wrathful punk like Van Jones. Resistance is the only rational response to a goon who speaks the language of defunct 19th-century authoritarianism. He can sit on Marx's tombstone and rotate to ground level, but Liberty is the new radicalism, and it always will be! Dress-up revolutionaries can go to hell. We've seen their future, and it doesn't work.

September 4, 2009

Ring the bells that still can ringForget your perfect offeringThere is a crack in everythingThat's how the light gets in

- Leonard Cohen (Anthem) -

Ever since Barack Obama slithered into office, and his intentions became clear, I've wondered which revolution would happen first - the one pursued by Obama and the pigpile of textbook radicals he's gathered around himself, or the completely unplanned implosion of what James V. DeLong has called The Special Interest State (see "The Coming of the Fourth American Republic"). Today I don't think it's either/or, but only the second choice, either on its own or hastened by Obama.

The Special Interest State is the hypercomplex, bureaucratic, greed-driven Leviathan that doesn't represents the majority of the people. It simply delivers the spoils of government to all the important open hands in exchange for power. It's nearly what we have now. We're ruled by a decomposing idiotocracy of encumbents. The stink of shamelessness is everywhere and they no longer care what we think. But when the excess wealth runs out, the debt piles up, and the massive claims inevitably conflict, the bribery machine breaks down.

Its catastrophic waste, inefficiency and corruption can't be hidden. Like the USSR, its wheels and gears grind to a stop and something new can be born. Post-collapse, there's a lot of competition and renewal; the outcome depends upon immutables, on whether the culture reasserts itself in familiar ways after the collapse. The constitutional process of elections should prevent this sort of thing, and it would do so if it could prevent the establishment of a professional political class. So far, it hasn't.

There's a huge body of literature on the conditions, participants and components of social and political revolutions, but I think they all include, as a first cause, some dramatic failure, bungling or outright collapse of the existing regime. Obama's unintended potential for all three are conspicuous - never mind his intentions -and he's reckless enough to induce chaos when what he only wants is crisis.

Obama and Rahm and the leftist tribe of flunkeys and savants who make up his administration and his supporters in Congress aren't as culturally savvy as their predecessors in the old New Left. The old Left held a torch for personal sovereignty. To these guys, the world consists of hammers and nails, or as Lenin was reported to have asked, "Who, whom?"

Okay, it's time to pick the most egregrious statement by Van "Get your vid camera ready for some verbiage" Jones, you know, Obama's "Green Jobs Czar" (whatever in the world that is).

And note, before you go high and to the right: The dude is a Communist (another happenstance acquaintance of Obama, it seems). So, please ... take this into consideration and don't overreact to any of the following remarks:

"Obama will reportedly be “more specific,” but he won’t commit himself to any particular piece of legislation."

ABC News reports that Barack Obama has returned to Washington, only to step off the plane and “into his next domestic crisis.” He “planned to leave the details of health-care reform to Congress, but today the White House says he’ll play a much stronger role.” The Associated Press says Obama is “backing away” from his “‘it’s-all-on-the-table’ approach” and is “prepared to get louder and more involved in the details of a health care overhaul.” “This weekend,” NBC Nightly News explained in its lead story, “the president signaled an aggressive stance to put his personal stamp on the sweeping legislation.”

There’s only one problem. These stories were all reported nearly three months ago upon Obama’s return from his largely failed European mission. And yet, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Obama’s planned address to a joint session of Congress next week “will insert the president into the heated debate in a way he has avoided all summer.” The Washington Post informed readers that the “White House is scrambling to take control of the health-care debate after watching from the sidelines.” A “senior aide” to Obama says the president will be “much more prescriptive.”

Why the White House press corps didn’t just change the date on their old copy and run it again is beyond me. And I’ll leave it to others to ponder the media’s seemingly infinite capacity to give Obama as many do-overs as he might need.

Why the Obama administration is determined to do the time warp again is easier to decipher. Obama’s advisers think the answer to every problem is more cowbell, if by “cowbell” you mean “Obama.” It’s like Obama guru David Axelrod is the Christopher Walken character from the Saturday Night Live skit about Blue Oyster Cult (if you don’t know the reference, Google “cowbell”).

Every time someone comes up with an alternative to throwing Obama on TV, Axelrod says, “No, no, no. Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription . . . is more Obama!”

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHERWill bill give Obama control of Internet?Proposed new powers called 'drastic federal intervention'By Drew Zahn

First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet – including private citizens' banks and health records, if Rockefeller's examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president.

Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as "the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information," including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the "critical infrastructure."

Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional.

And while the critics concede the need for increased security, they object to what is perceived as a dangerous and intrusive expansion of government power.

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared "cyber emergency."

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.

A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's in frastructure" without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act's broadly drawn government powers.

"The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

"The whole thing smells bad to me," writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. "I don't like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president."

The White House is hiring a contractor to harvest information about Americans from its pages on social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.

The National Legal and Policy Center, or NLPC, revealed the White House New Media team is seeking to hire a technology vendor to collect data such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place where the White House "maintains a presence" – for a period of up to eight years.

"The contractor shall provide the necessary services to capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP (Executive Office of the President) on publicly-accessible web sites, along with information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP offices under PRA (Presidential Records Act) maintains a presence," the posting states.

There is an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year's term was "Political Correctness."The winner wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

September 2, 2009

Curt Schilling, he of the World Series "bloody sock" fame, is apparently considering a run for Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat. Schilling's a conservative Christian who openly campaigned for Pres. Bush during the playoffs and World Series in 2004.

While John Kerry was yelling "touchdown!" at Sox games and making Obama look like Cy Young with his first pitches during the '04 campaign, Schilling was winning minds and hearts with his courageous performance. Could Schill and Lerch soon be colleagues?

I think it would be outstanding to have Schilling in the Senate. After all, anything would be an improvement over Kennedy, but Schilling is actually an articulate guy. Plus, he would perhaps bring a little bit of "Mr. Smith" to the Senate. Can you imagine the tectonic shift in Washington of having the Kennedy seat go to a conservative Republican?

He'd be a formidable candidate, I think, in the current political climate. Even Barney Frank is getting heat at the town halls.

Plus, consider all the baseball verbiage Schilling could use, almost to the exclusion of all other typical political-speak. Also, when people say "huh?", Schilling could just say ... "Oh, well, you don't understand. I am a former MLB player. That's high-speed baseball lingo."

Here are some things that Schilling could "hit" right now:

1) That Barack Obama has no ... ba ... game;

2) That Bill Clinton, he cheated more than A-Rod;

2a) Bonus Clinton comment: That Bill Clinton could really lay down a squeeze;

3) That Joe Biden is not qualified to coach first base at Pawtucket;

4) That Obama Administration has more free-swingin' lefties than the Cuban national team. Come to think of it, they are the Cuban national team; and ...

5) That Michelle Obama has had more crazy uniforms than the Houston Astros, and I mean not even I could look good in those classic rainbows.

Okay, maybe I could. Maybe those were the most glorious uniforms ever. Maybe the Houston Astros rule the baseball universe, but I digress ... Michelle's colors do look similar to the 'Stros 'Bows, only they don't match as well. But any one could look good in these unis, especially me.

Advert asks us whether the 'recession' (depression/collapse) will lead to a 'new world order'. And the riot police are helping us, look!

I can't help but point out the propaganda in the video, though it's fairly obvious:

1. The bankers want a free market. This is a total lie; they thrive off restricting trade and consolidating power - their wealth comes not from trading, but creating money and Ponzi schemes (ie criminal fraud, not 'capitalism').

1.1 The free market is bad for you. Again, a total lie; what is bad for you is the current economic system, which is a two-tiered system with the money changing bankers on top and a brutal regulated economy for the serfs below.

2. The police (and thus the state) are putting pressure on the bankers. A complete fraud - the government answers purely to the bankers; any reform that GENUINELY stops Rothschild-Rockefeller greed, theft and corruption doesn't stand a chance.

2.1 The police are on your side. Again this is the complete opposite of reality, where the police fulfill their role as revenue collectors for the state, and increasingly act as thugs towards the people (though the state will betray them and throw them to the wolves just like everyone else).

2.1.1 Police 'powers' (ie their immunity from legal accountability for their actions) are good. I definitely don't think so! But, hey, if you like the prospect of being victimised by this criminal out of control state and its goons, then keep going, cheer for more police powers!

2.1.2 We are all punishing the bankers. This is the Class War phenomenon - historically exploited by leadership intent on driving socialist/Marxist policy. Of course, class solidarity is a total fraud as it always has been, and has always led to enslavement rather than more freedom for either 'working' people, or the 'bourgeoisie'. We think we are having a great victory - without realising the state monster is coming down upon us too. Divide and rule.

3. The brainwashed public are being introduced to terms like 'new world order'. And they will lap it up. Yeah! New world order! Get those evil capitalist bankers (ignoring the obvious fact that the NWO is a product of bankers, it's an authoritarian socialist-fascist world government by bankers, for bankers, of bankers).

If you aren't sure about whether this world government is good, I would recommend you take a close look at theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights. It's full of holes and distortions, you have no rights according to the UN, as I wrote in the link above.

All this world government is missing is taxation across the world to really get it started...how convenient, they want to exploit the hyped global warming fraud to impose a global carbon tax. Hmm.

September 1, 2009

Persecuted German Homeschool Family Facing September Custody HearingHave had lien placed on their home by government

Human rights advocates are calling the case of a German homeschooling family "a critical human rights battle." On September 22nd, the Schmidt family of southern Bavaria in Germany will face a hearing in which government officials will decide if they may keep custody of one of their sons.

Hans and Petra Schmidt have been teaching their children, Josua, 16, and Aaron, 14, for more than nine years in an attempt to shield them from what they hold to be a hostile moral and heavily secularised environment in German public schools. To date the Schmidts have been forced to pay nearly 13,000 Euros (US $18,300) in home schooling fines and have had a lien placed on their home by the government.

But worse than fines is the threat by the Jugendamt, or Youth Office, to remove one of their children from the home entirely. […] It is commonly held by the German authorities that homeschooled children are socially maladjusted.

[…] Germany is undertaking a crackdown on homeschooling families who face crippling fines, the seizure of their children and even prison for continuing to teach their children at home. In 1938, Hitler's Germany outlawed homeschooling which ban is one of the few bills introduced by the Nazi regime that is still on the books today. […] Last year the parents of a homeschooling family in the state of Hesse, Juergen and Rosemarie Dudek, were each sentenced to three months in prison. In 2007 the case of the Busekros family became internationally notorious when 15 year-old Melissa Busekros was abducted by government officials, aided by 15 police officers, and locked up in a child psychiatric unit because she had been homeschooled.Read More...

The fiasco currently unraveling in Britain regarding the release of the Lockerbie bomber seems confusing at first, but then again it really isn't. If you keep in mind that the post-modern Left would like to release bad guys (i.e., Guantanamo Bay) and/or not prosecute them (i.e., Bill Richardson or the Black Panthers intimidating voters on Election Day) while putting in jail those who would fight evil (i.e., CIA agents whose second hand smoke may have offended jihadi sensibilities), then you start to understand.

In is out. Yes is maybe. No is yes. Right is wrong. Down is up. If not, change the definition of "up". What do you mean by "is" up, any way?

The words have new meaning, you say? Yes, and the rules have changed. Rather, the rules are not there. The post-modernists have absconded with all the foregoing.

We recall the furiously righteous indignation of the Left at the thought that America would invade Iraq "for oil". Never mind the absurdity of the charge (when do we get that Iraqi oil, any way?); the larger point was that it is a dastardly crime indeed to fight ... to risk innocent lives ... for mere profit.

Now, with the pathetic, public implosion of the Labor government via the Megrahi matter, we see that to the post-modern Left, it's perfectly okay to surrender for oil -- that is, to get something of monetary value in exchange for the release of a mass murderer.

So, if we understand correctly, the problem is not that an act is done for oil, but rather it is wrong to fight bad guys for oil. But doesn't surrendering to or appeasing evil risk innocent lives? Neville Chamberlain comes to mind. But never mind. Got it. Giving in for oil is is fine.

This is where post-modern thinking and situational morality leads -- into a deep and dark abyss. Cultures awash in such thinking are in grave danger, as is Europe today. Not surprisingly, murderous jihadis have emerged from their caves and unapologetic Islamists are on the march. As a shark smells blood in the water, they sense cowardice in the air.

Europe, and in truth much of the West, has wanted to be rid of the shackles of old traditions and faith for some time. Judeo-Christian ideas about God, country, duty, honor, and such, are well, so very ignoble and common. How can a thinking culture be weighted down with such klunky artifacts as it speeds toward a better day?

However, the problem with such thinking is that the virtues needed to fight evil and preserve a way of life -- courage, loyalty, justice, and perseverance, to name a few -- spring from a culture that at least respects the faith and unchanging values that made it great.

Courage is a moral virtue. Why would one man risk his life for others unless there was something beyond his continued existence on this earth that mattered?

The post-modernists say that there are no "metatruths", or some such gobbledygook. In other words, nothing is innately special, right, eternal, or unchanging. Simply put, the rules change as situations change. Not just some rules (certain ways of behaving do change, by necessity over time), mind you, but all of them are on the table. Yes, all rules are subject to change or cancellation, and without notice. Thus, doing something for oil is now good, you see, because our betters wish to do a good deed for a purportedly dying terrorist. Compassion is good in this case, of course.

And by the way, you puritannical dinosaurs, do not concern yourselves with the irrelevant moral indiscretions in the Left's preferred leaders. And please step aside while the opposition is vilified for the same, or even less severe, conduct. Lying is okay to advance the greater good of providing the people with "basic fundamental rights", whatever those are in the minds of the relativist, by the way ... and so on.

Confused? Don't be. Remember, they make the rules, and the rules change when necessary to expand or maintain control. And there is no truth outside what an individual declares for himself. Sounds rather authoritarian, doesn't it? But wait, I thought authority wasn't absolute. Indeed, post-modern authority is maintained by power rather than by moral authority and/or the consent of the governed.

When each man or woman is utterly without moral constraint, each day is a bet against the chance that one doesn't have to encounter some one stronger than him in a dark alley. But eventually, the law of probability kicks in and he meets that some one and perishes.

When post-modernists assume control of an organization or government (which, by definition require adherance to standards to survive), then all under their charge are at risk. After all, who says that one person or group's right to assert a standard is superior to another's? And what is the reason for fighting, rather than seeking "peace", with jihadis? Unmoored post-modern thought takes away the reason to live -- or die -- for anything beyond one's personal comfort, peach and affluence. Human beings are mere predators and prey.

The post-modernists have made inroads in America, as evidenced by the election of Barack Obama. However, they still have a steep hill to climb here.

Indeed, they can have my Bible (and my keyboard) when they pry my cold, dead fingers from them.

During a media conference at his residence in centralBeijing, Ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr. talks aboutPresident Obama's visit to China, which willlikely tackle climate change, among other topics.

EPA Expected to Declare CarbonDioxide a Dangerous Pollutant

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected in the next few weeks to declare that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are pollutants, a move that would require the federal government to regulate them -- even without legislation.

That advice may need heeding if the Environmental Protection Agency declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases dangerous pollutants, a move -- expected in the next couple weeks -- that would require the federal government to impose new rules limiting emissions.

But some skeptics say regulating carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, may be a difficult task, especially since people emit carbon dioxide with every breath.

"The EPA doesn't have the manpower to implement the regulations the way they would have to be," said David Kreutzer, senior policy analyst in energy economics and climate change at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Kreutzer said new regulations would trigger a flood of lawsuits, would create massive paperwork and the EPA should have no reasonable expectation that people would comply.

In April, the EPA released its proposed finding that man-made pollution is a cause of global warming, triggering a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final decision.

The finding was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that said greenhouse gases are pollutan

President Obama repeatedly has pledged that anybody happy with his or her current health coverage will be able keep it. Surely that pledge should apply as well to coverage that individuals provide for themselves through their own careful savings.

What do Democratic leaders have against individual economic choice? Amid so many other flash points in their various versions of health care overhaul, observers might have missed their attempt to torch the Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), which are popular with millions of Americans.

FSAs are funds that workers can set aside without being taxed for out-of-pocket health care costs that are not covered by insurance. As many as 35 million Americans use them, according to loose industry estimates. The funds already are somewhat self-limiting because they must be used within each calendar year rather than being carried over tax-free indefinitely. But they serve the valuable purpose of encouraging people to treat their ailments early rather than waiting until their condition gets so bad that they need more doctors' appointments, emergency-room visits or other expensive help.

In their efforts to put a few billion dollars of lipstick on a trillion-dollar pig, Democratic leaders have targeted FSAs in an attempt to find "savings" to pay for their massive government health care dreams. The theory is that taxing these accounts as ordinary income would bring more money into the Treasury. This theory, however, contradicts the message peddled in other contexts by the Obama administration that smaller, preventive care now will save oodles of cash from surgeries and hospitalizations later.

In May, the Senate Finance Committee announced that among the changes it would consider were "limiting the amount that can be contributed to an FSA or eliminating FSAs altogether." In July, the Joint Committee on Taxation actually adopted an amendment to H.R. 3200, the House leadership's main bill, that would disallow over-the-counter medicines from being bought with money from FSAs or related Health Savings Accounts or Health Reimbursement Arrangements. The committee estimated that this change would "save" $8.2 billion, over 10 years, from the trillion-dollar -- or, put another way, the one-thousand-billion-dollar -- reform boondoggle.

HOOKUP WITH THE FOLKS AT DC'S CASH HACIENDA!If you're tired of the limp and embarrassing condition of your investment timber, you need DC'S CASH HACIENDA!

If your portfolio is earning low Marx and you want to belly up to the Warren Buffet, DC's your guy! You want out of South Africa and Israel? DC can get you into cloning. Lowenergy? He can have you pumping oil and boring for coal in one day!

Housing market off? How about prison construction in Mexico? Your portfolio will pry the lids off nail kegs across the Rio Grande. Tired of the slow transgender market? Consider synthetic humans. It's EASY!

Learn what everyone but you is talking about. Pave your way to financial happiness withDC's proven prosperity system. The testimonials are real, from real customers!!

In two days I traded up from reclaimed Kingsford and gasoline to propane!

Nickie Goomba - California

I was able to afford Merle Norman stuff in the first week. **

Opus #6 - Arkansas

That new sump pump works cool. My cellar don't flood no more!

Wetzy - Georgia

No more tire plugs. Now I can afford recaps!

Woodsterman - Vermont

Goodbye mullet! Now I can see a hairstylist!

LL - Louisiana

Remember! There are no sorrows for Soros! Call DC at 1-800-555-LOOT. Ask for DC, Bambi or Steele. Do it TODAY!

** Results not typical. Not to be construed as a solicitation for investments.

The Nickie Goomba weekly Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 17% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is spending his vacation. Forty-one percent (61%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Vacation Approval Index (VAI) rating of -44. Forty-eight percent (48%) of College-age voters were unable to identify the President by name.

Only nineteen percent (19%) of likely voters over 40 are confident that members of Congress could find their own "hind ends with a spatula". If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 41% of tall voters would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Almost 79% of Conservatives would vote to have their elected representatives sprayed with corn oil and fed live to ferrets.

The Presidential Marxism/Racism Index is calculated by subtracting the number who consider Obama a Marxist from the number who Obama considers racist. It is updated daily at 11:30 a.m. Pacific (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 62% of voters say they consider the President at least somewhat of a Marxist. That’s the highest level of perceived Marxism yet measured for Obama. The President considers fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats racist. Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans are considered racist. As for those not affiliated with either major party, Obama considers them 100% racist.

So far, it hasn't been much of a deal. And as we scale down our defense efforts, Russia is boosting military spending at double-digit rates. Here we have all but abandoned the testing and rebuilding of our nuclear deterrent, and Russia only last month test-launched two new Sineva class sub-based ICBMs.Whom do you think they're trying to intimidate?

Missile Defense: The U.S. has abandoned plans to install a missile defense system in Europe, according to a report. If true, this is a major strategic error that will have serious consequences for our allies in Europe and for us.

Quoting a U.S. source, the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza says the Obama administration has decided against building a missile shield to protect Poland and the Czech Republic. The reason? Russian opposition.

Now, if we want to build a defense system for friends in Europe, we'll have to place it in the Balkans, Israel or somewhere else. That is, if Russia approves.

This is a stark reversal of past policy and reneges on promises made by the current administration. Worse, it shows weakness. We got into a staredown with the Russian bear and we blinked.

President Obama has vowed to support missile defense, provided it was "pragmatic and cost-effective." Well, the Congressional Budget Office rated the system going into Poland and the Czech Republic as the most effective of the alternatives.

As for promises to our allies, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just this month said the U.S. would offer our allies a "defense umbrella" against threats from a possible Iranian nuclear weapon.

Now, all that high-sounding defense rhetoric is out the window.Coupled with the $1.2 billion slashed from the missile defense budget this year, the administration is making clear it hopes to kill off missile defense — a mistake we may all come to regret.

We've just weakened America's standing in a critical region of the world — Eastern Europe — and let our allies down. We've made them vulnerable, in ways that only we could, to Russia's growing military menace. Polish and Czech friends who had relied on us to stand firm and keep our word no doubt feel betrayed.

This diminishes our global influence. What smallish country will now take our word at face value when we promise to protect them?

The U.S. abandonment of the so-called "third site" development of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar array in the Czech Republic signals our weakness to both Russia and Iran.

Iran, as some have recently estimated, is less than a year away from having a workable nuclear weapon. Germany's intelligence agency, the BND, said in July that Iran will have the means to produce a nuclear weapon within six months. So the threat is growing.

In less than a week, Poland will commemorate the 70th anniversary of the beginning of World War II. On September 1st, 1939, Germany launched a war that killed tens of millions of people after concocting a false provocation on the Polish border, with the Soviet Union invading from the other direction. The Polish nation all but disappeared for several years, and for decades after the end of the war, Poland had to live with the war’s Iron Curtain legacy. For many reasons, September 1st will be a day of somber reflection for Poland and eastern Europe.

A few nations appear to have been left off of the list - including France and the UK, which had guaranteed Poland’s security but failed to initiate military action against the Germans until the invasion of France. Also missing is any mention of a representative from the US, despite American efforts to build a robust alliance and friendship with the Poles since their liberation from Soviet domination. Polonia News, a blog out of Poland with both English and Polish language versions, claims that the “snub” has Poles angry:

It is five days before the commemoration ceremony of the 70th anniversary, September 1st, of the outbreak of World War II in Poland and Washington has not yet announced who is going to represent the US administration.

Polish officials had been led to believe the US would be represented by Vice-President Joe Biden or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But Prime Minister Donald Tusk seems to have lost all hope that the Obama administration will be sending a high-level official to the ceremony. The ceremony will be attended by Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Putin and heads of 12 other states.

Many Polish officials are astonished and see it as a snub but don’t say it out loud. Here are some of comments voiced recently: “I would not attach a great importance to the fact that one country will not be represented by a member of the current administration.” “There is a very long way from Washington to Poland.”

Polish politicians and commentators noticed that Hillary Clinton has spent 11 days in Africa, while Polish soldiers die or get wounded in Afghanistan, but can’t spare a day to show a face for this important day for Poles. Just last week Polish government decided to spend nearly 300 million dollars on equipment for troops in that country. In Poland it is a lot of money.

Major Polish newspapers ask what else Poland can do for America? How many more officers should die in Afghanistan? How many more F-16s should they buy? Do they, Obama and Clinton, understand that US is about to commit another blunder?

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Material posted on this blog is made available for educational and informative purposes, and as such constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. , section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this blog is provided without profit for benign research and educational purposes.